There is only one flaw with the system right now, but its a philisophical debate as to whether or not it truly is a flaw.
Right now, the system has no way of differentiating a quality piece of media from one that people like.
So the harlem shake made a lot of people laugh, it followed an internet trnd and that causes a lot of people to upvote. That does not make it a quality video in the artistic sense. Of course, then you need to be subjectively defining 'artistic sense' - which is a wade through the philosophical muck.
Right now, we support the idea that something can get promoted if people like it, regardless of why they like it. This results in 95% of things being 'quality' and about 5% being 'funny/entertaining'. For example, in Photo of the Day there's the Gus Kenworthy captioned photo from the vitamin water ad that people put up there. Pure gold, but not a good photo.
I'm curious to hear the general opinion on this - do people enjoy the fact that stuff makes it to the top even if its just funny stuff that people like, or should we make it only quality photos?
To really add fuel to this debate, I submit the following photo:
https://www.newschoolers.com/photo/401465.0/splash?t=1
Was chosen as Photo of the Day. Relatively bad photo quality, not funny.... but super duper awesome.
Should that have made it?
